The Golden Mean God

Agent Smith December 22, 2021 at 16:48 3300 views 13 comments

Morality is about dos and don'ts which are, if you really look at it, restrictions applied to the possibility space of behavior. Put simply, there are fewer options for good than for bad. I'm going to rely on the Aristotelian Golden Mean principle to prove the point: there are 3 possibilities (2 extremes and, in between, only 1 right/correct way). Think of Goldilocks (too hot, just right, too cold) and also the Buddhist Madhyamaka.

Probability of good, P(G) = [math]\frac{1}{3} \approx 33\%[/math]

Probability of bad, P(B) = [math]\frac{2}{3} \approx 67\%[/math]

P(B) > p(G).

There's (got to be) more (twice as much) evil than good in the universe. Since God designed the universe, and the universe is more evil than good, God has to be evil. We have, my friends, a "mean" God.

Relevant other thread :point: Thoughts on the Epicurean paradox.

Comments (13)

theRiddler December 22, 2021 at 16:54 #633929 0 likes

Such a simple way of viewing things. Nice fractions.

Agent Smith December 22, 2021 at 17:03 #633932 0 likes

Quoting theRiddler

Such a simple way of viewing things.

Simple? Why?

theRiddler December 22, 2021 at 17:21 #633939 0 likes

You wouldn't understand or care, yet you speak.

180 Proof December 22, 2021 at 17:55 #633952 0 likes

Quoting Agent Smith

Since God designed the universe, and the universe is more evil than good, God has to be evil. We have, my friends, a "mean" God.

Much more likely, there is no "God" (worthy of worship.).

Agent Smith December 22, 2021 at 17:56 #633953 0 likes

Quoting theRiddler

You wouldn't understand or care, yet you speak.

Why wouldn't I understand? How do you know I don't care?

Agent Smith December 22, 2021 at 18:04 #633957 0 likes

Quoting 180 Proof

Much more likely, there is no "God" (worthy of worship.).

That's fine by me but what about the problem of (more) evil (than good)?

You know the self-appointed moral police of society seem to be lopsided/asymmetrical in their surveillance e.g. lust is on the list of sins but frigidity (asexuality) is not. The same maybe true of other qualities (only one extreme is treated as bad/evil).

180 Proof December 22, 2021 at 19:08 #633980 0 likes

Reply to Agent Smith What "problem"? This moral asymmetry of good & bad / evil is strongly correlated with entropy – the asymmetry of order & disorder – as it's far easier to break something than to make something, or simply put: because the latter has exponentially more failure-states than the former (e.g. one way to be born, countless ways to die).

Agent Smith December 23, 2021 at 00:08 #634063 0 likes

Quoting 180 Proof

This moral asymmetry of good & bad / evil is strongly corollated with entropy – the asymmetry of order & disorder – as it's far easier to break something than to make something, or simply put: because the latter has exponentially more failure-states than the former (e.g. one way to be born, countless ways to die).

If I look at a human as I would a machine, it makes sense: There's only one specific permutation of component parts that makes for a healthy person; compare that to the innumerable other permutations that would be regarded as unhealthy. In short there are fewer ways of keeping a person alive & well (good) than dead/unwell (evil).

That the universe is indifferent to our welfare is false; it's decidedly biased against it. How do we even manage to do any good at all? Fighting entropy is a losing battle, no?

john27 December 23, 2021 at 10:55 #634168 0 likes

Quoting Agent Smith

Aristotelian Golden Mean principle to prove the point: there are 3 possibilities (2 extremes and, in between, only 1 right/correct way). Think of Goldilocks (too hot, just right, too cold) and also the Buddhist Madhyamaka.

How would this tackle a sort of ends justify the means approach? e.g If you needed to visit your grandmother in another country, and you had three options, one extremely "bad", one extremely "good", and one in between, would the perception of good and bad still hold?

Agent Smith December 23, 2021 at 11:40 #634180 0 likes

Quoting john27

How would this tackle a sort of ends justify the means approach?

The way I see it, ends justifying means is intimately tied to the notion of the greater good, a utilitarian idea and we know Bentham-Mill were all about maximum happiness. This fails to gibe with the golden mean (neither minima nor maxima but medium). I don't think we can reconcile two ethical systems based on ideals that are polar opposites. I could be wrong. Sorry if I am.

john27 December 23, 2021 at 11:47 #634181 0 likes

Reply to Agent Smith

Oh, I see. Oops.

khaled December 23, 2021 at 12:42 #634189 0 likes

Reply to Agent Smith This would be valid if every action we took was dictated by picking a random number between 0~9, and if it's from 0~2 then it's evil (too low) 3~6 is just right, and 7~9 is evil (too high). But it doesn't work like that.

Agent Smith December 23, 2021 at 13:54 #634203 0 likes

Quoting khaled

random

Quoting khaled

But it doesn't work like that.

How does it work?

Quoting john27

Oh, I see. Oops.

:ok: